IMPORTANT POINT
The Reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 18 and 30-Reference-Jurisdiction to grant enhancement of compensation-Absence of proper reference-Government land which had been given on lease-Period of lease expired in 1980-Award passed in 1987-Both the Government and lease holders claimed compensation-Special Land Acquisition Officer referred dispute to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act-Application filed under Section 18 of the Act by appellant Samiti being already on the file-Non-mention of this application under Section 18 by Special Land Acquisition Officer-Subsequent impleadment of appellant Samiti as a party to the Reference pending under Section 30 of the Act and conversion of the same as a Reference under Section 18-Whether legal-(No).
       Held : The short question that arises for consideration is whether the SLAO had made a reference under Section 18 of the Act? Admittedly, the original reference was only under Section 30 of the Act, for apportionment as there was a dispute as to who should get the compensation. (Para 4)
       In the reference letter, the appellant-Samiti is not shown as a party. The first claimant is one, Shiv Narain Lal Chaudhary and there are six other claimants. The Reference letter of the SLAO clearly shows that the appellant-Samiti was not a party to such Reference. It is surprising as to how the learned Addl. District Judge could seek a clarification on the basis of an application which was found on the file and if such an application was made by any party, naturally there would have been a Reference under Section 18 of the Act and it would have been specifically mentioned in the Reference letter. It is equally surprising that even though the appellant was not a party to the reference case and was allegedly not having knowledge of the proceedings, how and at whose instance the clarification was sought by the Addl. District Judge. It is also pertinent to note that the clarification issued by the SLAO subsequent to the letter from the Addl. District Judge, cannot be construed as Reference under Section 18 of the Act. (Para 5)
       In the instant case, there was no Reference by the SLAO under Section 18 of the Act and the appellant-Samiti was not before the SLAO. Even the application allegedly filed on 12.10.1987 has rightly been characterized as suspicious as no mention has been made by the SLAO in the Reference letter dated 12.10.1987. In the absence of a proper Reference, the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the question of enhancement of compensation. When such an objection was not referred to the court, there was complete lack of jurisdiction. In our view, the decision of the High Court is correct and requires no interference. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-An extent of 2 bigha, 5 biswa and 8 dhur of land falling in Village Civil Station in the city of Allahabad was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), for establishing a commercial district centre at the instance of the Allahabad Development Authority (ADA). Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 13.1.1987 and Declaration under Section 6(1) was made on 6.2.1987. Emergency provision under Section 17 of the Act was invoked and the award was published on 25.5.1987. The land in question was government land which had been given on lease to Shiv Narain Chaudhary, Laxman Narain Chaudhary and others. The period of lease had expired in 1960 and it was not renewed. The award was passed on 25.5.1987 and the compensation was fixed at Rs.9,80,565.06. As both the Government and the lease holders claimed the compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) referred this dispute to the Civil Court on 12.10.1987 under Section 30 of the Act. The Reference was registered as Reference Case No. 124 of 1987 and the matter was pending before the 11th Addl. District Judge, Allahabad. While the matter was so pending, the Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, sent a communication on 11.8.1992 to the SLAO stating that on perusal of the case file, an application filed under Section 18 of the Act by the appellant herein, namely, Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (Appellant-Samiti), was found to be on the file and that no mention had been made regarding that application in the letter of Reference. A clarification, therefore, was sought by the Addl. District Judge. Pursuant to this communication, the SLAO sent the reply stating that such an application was also attached and due to an error, the same was not mentioned in the letter dated 12.10.1987. After the receipt of this letter, the 11th Addl. District Judge impleaded the appellant-Samiti and proceeded in the matter as if there was a proper Reference under Section 18 of the Act. It was held by the Addl. District Judge that for the land acquired by the Government, the market value shall be Rs.1,400/- per square yard. Seventy five per cent of the compensation was directed to be paid to the appellant-Samiti and the balance twenty five per cent was directed to be paid to the State Government.

2. The award passed by the Addl. District Judge was challenged by the sponsoring authority, viz., Allahabad Development Authority (ADA) as well as the State. ADA urged before the High Court that there was no proper Reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation and that the Addl. District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that the appellant-Samiti did not participate in the acquisition proceedings and therefore, they were not entitled to file Reference application under Section 18 of the Act. The High Court accepted the contentions raised by the ADA and the State and held that there was no proper reference under Section 18 of the Act and enhancement of compensation ordered by the reference court was set aside. However, the finding on issue No. 2 that the Samiti will be entitled to get seventy five per cent of the compensation amount and the balance twenty five per cent shall be given to the State, was affirmed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is challenged before us.

3. We heard the appellant s counsel and counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellant-Samiti submitted before us that the SLAO, by his subsequent letter, clarified that an error had been committed in not mentioning about the application submitted by the appellant-Samiti in the Reference letter, although such application itself had been sent along with the Reference file by the SLAO to the Additional District Judge. Learned counsel submitted that there was proper Reference under Section 18 of the Act and, therefore, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 461

IMPORTANT POINTThe Reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
The Reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it.